CFED
Stay Informed!
The Inclusive Economy
What we've learned from the 2009 Innovation Summit
By Anne Li on 12/16/2009 @ 04:09 PM
Thoughts shared by Michael Torrens, who until recently was CFED's Director of Development Finance & Innovation and who has recently joined Utah State University as its Director of Analysis, Assessment and Accreditation:
I've been reflecting upon the 2009 Innovation Summit (October 29th in Washington). I'd like to start sharing my reflections on what worked, what we've learned), and where the Summit might lead innovation@cfed going forward.
One of the biggest risks we took for the Summit also provided one of the greatest rewards; and that was the open format we designed into the event. This choice, combined with our selection of an unconventional space (Sidney Harman Hall) and a highly participatory agenda, provided a special energy and a structured/unstructured vibe that's unique in my experience. Some of our innovation@cfed strategic advisors have stressed the value of innovation processes and structures that build in "loose-tight" and "divergent-convergent" dynamics, and I think the best parts of the day captured those dynamics.
As I mentioned to a colleague at the event: At conferences I always hear people asking for more time for hallway conversations...the innovation summit is ALL hallway conversations...yet there's a refined structure and organizing principle...it's not chaos. For me, the opening exercise and subsequent innovation exchange were the highlights of the event. It's an open secret among seasoned conference attendees that the most valuable time is spent outside the plenaries, presentations and roundtables. Weeks and months before attending a conference, I'll usually be reaching out to set up meetings (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) or conversations (during breaks, playing hooky from sessions, etc.) with key contacts, funders and partners. However, rarely do I have the opportunity to make and explore the unplanned, unexpected and providential connections that I saw forged at CFED's innovation summit.
One of the key differences I observed was the opportunity for a real mixing of experience levels, backgrounds, perspectives and frameworks. In the course of the morning's activities, gathered around the innovation stations I saw small, medium and large group (ad hoc) conversations with highly engaged participants. I saw individuals and small groups pitching to funders. I saw groups/partnerships making ad hoc plans for activities or policy coordination on Capitol Hill. Still others were meeting, greeting and getting to know each other for the first time. I've been to other events that stressed interactivity, but that had more pre-planned, less spontaneous one-on-one sessions.
For some, the structure we provided (leading them to innovators and their stations) was an important guide and gateway to the event and activities. By providing a meeting point and focus of conversation (the innovation station and innovator), we provided a space for them to meet and interact with other summit participants. Other summit attendees ignored our suggestions and dove right into the signs and people that caught their eyes and interests. Still others had already pre-planned meetings and talks with key contacts. Others used the opportunity to engage in ad hoc planning and conversations. One of the things that CFED does best is bringing together highly skilled and knowledgeable individuals from diverse fields and backgrounds (it's part of our core mission after all to link "policy, practice and private markets"). But rarely have I seen an event where there was so much opportunity for interaction, collaboration, and unexpected connections.
At the same time, the very selection of an unconventional venue posed certain downsides. The theatre is very large compared to the public areas, so while the public spaces were filled and sometimes crowded (with people, tables, innovation stations, food, etc.), the theatre sometimes felt larger than the crowd. Also, because we couldn't use the street floor lobby space for activities (other than registration), we had many stations down in the Forum (the level below the street), which did not feel a light and open as the spaces upstairs. All that being said, I'm happy that we didn't hold the summit in the traditional hotel conference space, as I think it would have been very difficult to create the a different kind of vibe in a space that so many of us are used to using in a very different way.
I know for our next big event, CFED's asset learning conference (September 22-24,2010 in Washington, DC), we're going to work to recreate and sustain the energy and interaction that we saw as such a success at the innovation summit - the challenge is to do that in a venue with more than 1,000 people (vs. the 250 we had at the summit). I'm really looking forward to that! In my next post, I'll be exploring what we learned, what we can do better, and where the summit is leading us in 2010.
Copyright © 2012 CFED – Corporation for Enterprise Development 
1200 G Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 202.408.9788
Powered by ARCOS | Design by Plus Three
Comments
Leave a Comment